Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
in high threat environment. how to get out beyond the walls of our facilities. how do we remain successful in the private sector while still securing our embassies and protecting our people in these environments? the review board correctly points out the department has been resource-challenge for many years. this has constrained our mission, and restricting the use of resources even for security has become a conditioned response. decisions about the security resources being made more on costs than value. the approach fails to recognize the diplomacy and foreign aid put down payments in terms of good will, open borders for the export of american products, protection of intellectual property, and cooperation on security and counterterrorism. there is a lot to discuss. welcome again. we appreciate your time. on a personal note, since this is likely to be your last hearing before this committee and your leadership will be missed, i speak for many when i say you have been an outstanding secretary of state, you have changed the face of america abroad, and extended the house killed the bill -- ho
faced by all american officials operating overseas, how to remain active in high threat environment. how to get out beyond the walls of our facilities. how do we remain successful in the private sector while still securing our embassies and protecting our people in these environments? the review board correctly points out the department has been resource-challenged for many years. this has constrained our mission, and restricting the use of resources even for security has become a conditioned response. decisions about the security resources being made more on costs than value. the approach fails to recognize the diplomacy and foreign aid put down payments in terms of good will, open borders for the export of american products, protection of intellectual property, and, most importantly, cooperation on security and counterterrorism. there is a lot to discuss. welcome again. we appreciate your time. on a personal note, since this is likely to be your last hearing before this committee and your leadership will be missed, i speak for many when i say you have been an outstanding secretary of s
its employees. many of whom served in hostile environments. unfortunately, threats to americans abroad are growing particularly those threats are growing in north africa and the attacks last week in algeria again show the nature of the danger. i support having a wide diplomatic presence. we can't retreat. as you for recognizing your testimony. but it has to be done with the safety of our personnel foremost in mind. this committee intends to work with your department in a bipartisan way. and to work to improve security. every organization has its shortcomings to review with welcome them being highlighted, but it's this committee's job to get answers to the tough questions. our goal is to identify where the state department management broke down, thus failing to protect our people than benghazi to it is clear the problem wasn't confined to a few individuals. the accountability review board convened by you, madam secretary, found a, quote, systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at sea levels within two bureaus in the state department. according to the board, these sy
these decisions have on the environment that the u.s. is in. for most of history, we have maintained a strong military, not so that we can fight, but so that we can not fight. the other. that time made that is important -- the other point that tom made is to understand what is involved in military operations. there is a piece on the web that explains exactly what it is we can do with the troops we have at the president makes critical decisions about afghanistan. it is not just about bureaucrats in d.c.. fighting a war is a big logistical exercise. do you does want to talk about that and several surrounding decisions? >> we have become very accustomed to throwing around numbers of troops, and people have gotten way too comfortable with pulling numbers out of the air and discussing them as though they were serious. the effect of that is that very few americans actually understand that there is a method for figuring out how many troops are actually needed to accomplish something. when the recommendation comes from a military commander, this cannot just, as this white house seems to think, the co
who are mobile and work and a global environment and a large market. it is for the non college-bound people who used to go into factory jobs, blue-collar jobs that have been disappearing because of global labor competition. this brings back something on both sides. >> i talked to young people lot. mentoring them was real important. our industry changed a lot. it used to be joe roughneck out there on the raid. -- rig. today it is so highly technical. we see so many people out there. use the computers up on our raised floor. -- use the computers up on our -- you see computers up on our rig floor. there are guys following what we are doing, making real time decisions. it is a different world today than it was before. an incredibly dirty business. -- nerdy business. it has become that. >> we had an odd editorial meeting about two years ago in which someone came in and was talking to us about the need for investments in wind power and also in mandating the use of gas. multiple choice question for you. is he a fool, or a villain? [laughter] >> i think he learned a lesson or two with
certainly aware of the increasing threat environment. i not only was briefed on that, i testified to that effect. and there were constant evaluations going on. but no one, not the ambassador, security professionals, the intelligence community ever recommended closing that mission. and the reason they didn't was because the ongoing threat environment had up until the spring before our terrible attack in benghazi been a result of post-conflict conditions. that is something that we're familiar with all over the world. yes, there were some attacks, as you have said, but our evaluation of them and the recommendation by the security professionals was that those were all manageable because we had a lot of that around the world. i mean, there is a long list of attacks that have been foiled, assassination plots that have been prevented. so this is not some -- you know, one off event. this is considered in an atmosphere of a lot of threats and dangers. and at the end of the day, you know, there was a decision made that this would be evaluated but it would not be closed and, unfortunately, w
environment the united states is facing? what we have better discussions during these debates that centered more on the economy? >> i think in the end, this one did come down to the economy. the president may be basing his second term on social issues. if you take his inauguration speech as a guidepost to where he wants to go from here. but i did not hear him to talk a lot about the campaign -- during the campaign. the economy began to get better. i did not see him spending a lot of time talking about gay rights during the election. i did not hear him talk very much about gun control. i think it was mentioned once in one of the debates. i think they thought they had to get -- what they concentrated on, in some ways, this was not so much an election about issues as it was about identifying their voters and getting their voters to the polls and recognizing the demographics in this country were changing dramatically. they figured that out and how to get people to the polls and republicans did not do as well. i think the core of the president's message was the economy. >> the last question beca
on the threat environment that the united states is in. for most of history we don't talk about this very much. we have maintained a strong military, not so that we can buy, so that we can not fight. it is a point i think that tom made which is important, it is i want to segue to fred, is to understand what it is that is involved in a military operation. fred has just finished a very important piece of work, i should a shorter longer, an interactive piece on the web that i know we be happy to share with folks that explains just what it is that we can do with particular numbers of troops we have as the president makes critical decisions about afghanistan but it's not just about warfighters and bureaucrats in d.c. fighting a war is a big logistical exercise. fred, do want to talk about that and some of those ceramic decisions? >> sure. if we become very accustomed to throwing numbers of troops around and people of gotten way too comfortable with pulling numbers out of the air and discussing them as though they were serious, and the effect of that is that very few americans i think actually under
of people raising it and how they are raising it given the environment we are in in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy. no gun laws have ever worked to accomplish that. some of the place necessary this country with the strictist gun laws have the most violence. let's have that debate, we are happy to point out that. bill: last week harry reid seemed to suggest that he did not want to put his senate democrats in an uncomfortable situation regarding a vote on gun control. there are 20 democratic senators up for re-election in 2014. is it your belief that he's trying to give them cover? >> well, i understand why, we -- by the way, the right to bear arms is not something we made up. it is a constitutional right and i hope that there are democrats that are uncomfortable about doing things that undermine that. it is a basic fundamental american rights, it's one of the unique rights we have compared to the rest of the world and it's one we won't give up easily i tell that you much. bill: thank you for your time. marco rubio the republican from florida. one of the reasons he was on with
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)